Text Size

Stardrive

1. Jack Sarfatti shared a link.
It seems to me that Bohmian beables are obviously required.
1) fact is that we live in a classical macroscopic world where the fundamental observable is Maxwell's local classical electromagnetic field tensor F
obeying in Cartan form notation
F = dA
dF = 0
d*F = *J
* = Hodge dual
All our information about other fermion matter fields comes indirectly via F and also A if you include the Bohm-Aharonov quantum effect.
Therefore, the basic classical observable is the F electromagnetic field.
As Basil Hiley explains this beable F is an infinite-dimensional field configuration on a spacelike or lightlike surface in which each spacetime event is a "dimension". It has a super Q and photons are not localized like massive fermions are. If, instead of the continuum, we use a voxelated 3D + 1 world crystal lattice (Kleinert) then the hologram principle tells us that the lattice spacing is not the Planck length Lp, but rather it is L where
L^3 = Lp^2A^1/2
A = area - entropy of the horizon screen Seth pixelated computer
The number of BITs in J. A. Wheeler's
IT FROM BIT
is N = A/4Lp^2 = A^3/2/L^3 ~ 10^52/10^-70 ~ 10^122 in our actual causal diamond pictured here
Showing Apast and A future with 3D volumes of both retarded history and advanced destiny influence on the 3D lightlike slices. I think Susskind's student Raphael Buosso at UC Berkeley has worked this all out mathematically though perhaps not with the advanced Wheeler-Feynman -Cramer-Aharonov effect?
Note the change in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which according to Susskind et-al is
&x ~ h/&p + Lp^2&p/h
However, I think it may really be
&x ~ h/&p + L^2&p/h
Note that
Lp = 10^-35 meters
A^1/2 = 10^26 meters
L^3 ~ 10^-7010^26 = 10^-44 meters^3
L ~ 10^-15 meter ~ 1 fermi ~ 1 Gev
for the voxel unit cell of the hologram image world crystal lattice
Hawking's black body radiation is a horizon surface effect
T ~ A^-1/2
I predict a second high temperature horizon thickness Hawking radiation of temperature
T' ~ (LcA^1/2)^-1/2
(LcA^1/2) is the proper length quantum thickness of the Horizon as a "stretched membrane" (Kip Thorne)
Therefore, the stretched membrane is a very efficient Carnot limited heat engine with
(Work outpu/Heat input ) < 1 - (Lc/A^1'2)^1/2 ---> 0 as A^1/2 ---> Lp (Planck black hole)
Lc is the formal UV cutoff
Now there may be a spectrum of such cutoff's. Sinziana Paduroiu's astrophysicist colleagues in Paris suggest that Susskind's cut off of Lp corresponds to Hawking gravity wave black body radiation.
Note that for precision cosmology (LpA^1/2)^1/2 ~ (10^-3510^26)^1/2 ~ (10^-9)^1/2 ~ 10^-3 meters ~ 10^11 Hz corresponding to the observed dark energy density. However, it is easily shown that this must come from our future horizon as a retro-causal back-from-the-future "destiny" (Aharonov) effect.
Search Results
Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com
discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
Aug 26, 2010 – A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has ...
On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jack, I'll look at these. But to the extent that you have to adduce a Bohmian picture to support your claim, I can't buy it, because I don't think the 'beable' approach is correct. I don't agree that there are 'beables'. RK
Back From the Future | DiscoverMagazine.com
discovermagazine.com
A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?
Jun 26

Quantum Theory and Biology V2 updated

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Quantum Information Theory, David Bohm, Consciousness, Brian Josephson, Basil Hiley, Antony Valentini
Jack Sarfatti
David Bohm, Albert Einstein, Louis De Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman
• Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:

Ruth, may I make a correction to what you wrote below. Bohm '52 work was not 'originally undertaken to solve the measurement problem.' He had a different motive. I asked him to clarify, in writing, w
...See More
www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk
This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...
• Jack Sarfatti On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:08 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

Ruth wrote:

"I don't rule out that some deeper theory might eventually be found, that could help answer ultimate questions in more specific terms. But it hasn't been demonstrated, to my knowledge, that one has to have violations of Born Rule in order to explain life." (end quote)

To the contrary, it has been demonstrated in my opinion. First start with Brian's paper "On the biological utilization of nonlocality" with the Greek physicist whose name escapes me for the moment.

Second: Lecture 8 of http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

Specifically, how the Born rule depends on violation of the generalized action-reaction (relativity) principle that Q has no sources. Q pilots matter without direct back-reaction of matter on Q.

In other words, orthodox quantum theory treats matter beables as test particles! - clearly an approximation.

Obviously signal nonlocality violating no-signaling theorems has a Darwinian advantage. Indeed, without it, entanglement appears as static noise locally. Imagine that Alice and Bob's minds are represented each by a giant macroscopic coherent entangled quantum potential Q(A,B). It would obviously be a survival advantage for Alice and Bob to directly send messages to each other at a distance like the Austraiian aborigines do in the Outback. Now use scale invariance. It's obviously an advantage for separate nerve cells in our brains to do so. Also in terms of morphological development of the organisim - signal nonlocality is an obvious plus, which I think is part of Brian Josephson's message in that paper.

Third:

Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
(or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
Jun 25

Hacking the Cosmic Code (Mind of God)

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Star Trek Q, Seth Lloyd
Jack Sarfatti
Our two 2D cosmic horizons past and future are the pixelated hologram screens
the 3D interior of the causal diamond is voxelated at scale
L^3 = Lp^2A^1/2
A = area-entropy scale of the cosmological horizons
Seth Lloyd argues that horizons are computers.
The software is some kind of topological conformal anyonic quantum field theory.
i.e. a de Sitter / > 0 version of AdS/CFT
the interior bulk gravity & matter fields inside the causal diamond are hologram images of the stuff running on the horizon hologram computing screens.
In terms of what the yearning masses will understand - Hawking's Mind of God is alive and well on our past and future cosmological horizons.
1
• Theodore Silva From what I can understand, that makes sense to me...
• Jack Sarfatti Your darn toot'n it does. This is my Destiny Matrix Theory of Reality.
• Jack Sarfatti So, now can we hack the Mind of God since its software on the cosmic horizon computing screens and we are its sub-programs like in the movies MATRIX et-al?
• Nick Albertini Seth Lloyd is right. The scaling factor had me for a loop. But, if it is correct; and if dark matter is external to the cosmic horizon (as infalling matter into our cosmic black hole - universe), then that ratio would help to calculate the energies and masses of dark matter cluster originating cosmic ray particles generated by impact of such infalling matter with our cosmic horizon.
• Larry Lowe If you could hack the Mind of God, what kind of programming change would you induce?

Win the lottery?

World Peace?

World Dominance?

• Nicole Tedesco OUCH! I think I just came across a bug in that computer...
• Nicole Tedesco As with Hawking Radiation in general, I would assume the evaporation rate of the Universe to be proportional to the total mass of the Universe, which of course evaporates with time. I don't recall this being enough, however, to account for the "expansion" acceleration (e.g., dark energy).
• Theodore Silva Speaking of bugs this question has been bugging me: I know this is, in all probability, a dumb idea, but is it possible to have many time lines in your view of physics reality without multiple Universes – all moving toward the Omega point and merging together – or is there only one time line toward your Destiny Matrix?
• Nick Albertini Dark energy is required by metrics that might not be the right metrics (Einstein Field Equation metrics). For example, what does a Poplawski Metric (with sp-t torsion) require? Which, if describing a black hole universe, is probably a better approximation metric to use to deduce any need for dark energy. So, it might not be required at all by the true quantized metric, or whatever description comes out of TOE; even if it is required by approximate metrics.
• Jack Sarfatti Yes, Larry u got it.
• Jack Sarfatti Nicole - yes the future cosmic horizon evaporates that's what advanced Hawking radiation dark energy is, but also matter from our causal diamond is falling through. Yes, this is a good point.
• Jack Sarfatti Nick - good question about torsion. However, the standard model with dark energy and dark matter is working well and there is no evidence yet for torsion. However, I would be surprised if torsion is not there because it's a natural extension of GR as a local gauge theory.
• Jack Sarfatti Larry - yes win the lottery for sure. A Hitler-type who can hack the Mind of God would enslave us all - like the Beast 666 etc in the Evangelical Mythos. Think Q on Star Trek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_(Star_Trek)
en.wikipedia.org
Q is a fictional character who appears in the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager, as well as in related products. In all of these programs, he is played by John de Lancie. The name "Q" also applies to all other individuals of the Q Con...
Jun 25

Hot Physics Discussions on Facebook June 25, 2013 Part 1

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Roger Penrose, Quantum Theory, Max Tegmark, Gerard 't Hooft, entanglement signals, David Bohm, cosmology, Consciousness
1.
2. Jack Sarfatti
Phys. Rev. D » Volume 87 » Issue 4
< Previous Article | Next Article >
Phys. Rev. D 87, 041301(R) (2013) [6 pages]
Observing the multiverse with cosmic wakes
Abstract
References
No Citing Articles
Matthew Kleban1,*, Thomas S. Levi2,†, and Kris Sigurdson2,‡ 1Department of Physics, CCPP, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z1, Canada
Received 28 January 2012; revised 26 May 2012; published 21 February 2013
Current theories of the origin of the Universe, including string theory, predict the existence of a multiverse with many bubble universes. These bubble universes may collide, and collisions with ours produce cosmic wakes that enter our Hubble volume, appear as unusually symmetric disks in the cosmic microwave background, and disturb large scale structure. There is preliminary evidence consistent with one or more of these disturbances on our sky. However, other sources can produce similar features in the cosmic microwave background, and so additional signals are needed to verify their extra-universal origin. Here we find, for the first time, the detailed three-dimensional shape, temperature, and polarization signals of the cosmic wake of a bubble collision consistent with current observations. The polarization pattern has distinct features that when correlated with the corresponding temperature pattern are a unique and striking signal of a bubble collision. These features represent a verifiable prediction of the multiverse paradigm and might be detected by current or future experiments. A detection of a bubble collision would confirm the existence of the multiverse, provide compelling evidence for the string theory landscape, and sharpen our picture of the Universe and its origins.
• Ram Ayana and Miriam Strauss like this.
• Jack Sarfatti Kuch, you are not communicating intelligibly in many of your sentences.
• William Kuch My apologies for that it's a habit Ive been trying to break.
• Theodore Silva I like the Multiverse idea, it leaves open the concept of a kind of "natural selection" for evolving Universes -- even a kind of sexual selection, like the exchange of genes between bacteria. Universes exchanging Constants?
• Paul Zielinski "No Z you are confused. Tegmark's Levels 1 and 2 are a simple consequence of Einstein's GR + INFLATION." No Jack I am not confused. The mainstream view is that as things stand the existence of a Tegmark Level II multiverse is a *hypothesis*, and I agree with that view.

The anthropic conundrum is solved in the Tegmark Level II multiverse model by random generation of new universes, in a kind of cosmic Darwinian lottery -- as discussed for example by Penrose. I see nothing in contemporary physics that *requires* the existence of such a multiverse, and the observational support at this point is rather weak. All kinds of things can be derived in theory that may or may not be realized in nature.

Of course a Tegmark Level III multiverse (a la Everett) is another issue, and is even more conjectural than Level II, since it is based on an alternate interpretation of QM, and is thus not subject to direct empirical confirmation. So I agree with you on that.
• William Kuch The term "Multiverse" is an oxymoron, resolvable IFF all of these alternate universes are trivial. BAM.
• Jack Sarfatti Kuch U r babbling like a loon and do not at all understand this subject. You are way out of your depth and do not know that you do not know.
• Jack Sarfatti Z yes multiverse Level II is a hypothesis that is a "theorem" if you accept the mainstream theory of "chaotic inflation" for which actual evidence is accumulating and more decisive tests are coming. Level 1 is much more certain as it only requires Einstein's GR - this is explained in Tamara Davis's PhD. There are many "causal diamonds" we are inside one of them and they are observer-dependent.
• William Kuch Indeed I am, with one caveat. I do not babble like a loon. I babble as one.
• Jack Sarfatti A moment of lucid self-awareness - good for you.
• Jack Sarfatti OK Z I think we agree Level I very probable - effectively a fact given Tamara Davis's PhD Level II less certain e.g. Penrose's qualms about chaotic inflation, Level III even less certain, I actually reject it. Level IV seems to be of no scientific value. BTW string theory is getting more testable it seems from Lenny Susskind's Stanford online videos.
• Paul Zielinski OK Jack let's agree that GR + cosmic inflation strongly suggests the possibility of a Level II multiverse being realized in nature. But let's also acknowledge that the inflation model is still itself hypothetical in character. So yes if you are committed to the inflation model then it is reasonable to take the existence of a Level II multiverse seriously.
3. Jack Sarfatti
Time Crystal
• Jack Sarfatti On Jun 24, 2013, at 5:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

problem is that it does no work so we cannot apply it to fly an airplane or a space ship there always seems to be a Catch 22 preventing a useful application :

"perpetual motion"? fir
st thought "crackpot"

second thought: "Wilczek's time crystal"

Rotating Casimir systems: magnetic field-enhanced perpetual motion, possible realization in doped nanotubes, and laws of thermodynamics
M. N. Chernodub
CNRS, Laboratoire de Mathematiques et Physique Theorique, Universite Francois-Rabelais Tours,
Federation Denis Poisson, Parc de Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France and
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Gent, Krijgslaan 281, S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium
(Dated: August 24, 2012)

Recently, we have demonstrated that for a certain class of Casimir-type systems ("devices") the energy of zero-point vacuum fluctuations reaches its global minimum when the device rotates about a certain axis rather than remains static. This rotational vacuum effect may lead to the emergence of permanently rotating objects provided the negative rotational energy of zero-point fluctuations cancels the positive rotational energy of the device itself. In this paper, we show that for massless electrically charged particles the rotational vacuum effect should be drastically (astronomically) enhanced in the presence of a magnetic field. As an illustration, we show that in a background of experimentally available magnetic fields the zero-point energy of massless excitations in rotating torus-shaped doped carbon nanotubes may indeed overwhelm the classical energy of rotation for certain angular frequencies so that the permanently rotating state is energetically favored. The suggested "zero-point driven" devices, which have no internally moving parts, correspond to a perpetuum mobile of a new, fourth kind: They do not produce any work despite the fact that their equilibrium (ground) state corresponds to a permanent rotation even in the presence of an external environment. We show that our proposal is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
PACS numbers: 03.70.+k, 42.50.Lc, 42.50.Pq

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:05 PM, art wagner wrote:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1207.3052.pdf
4. Jack Sarfatti
• Dean Radin rebuts the failure to replicate Bem's "Feeling the Future" done on line without proper controls Radin says - bogus rebuttal
• Jack Sarfatti From: Dean Radin
Subject: Re: Possible nuclear detonation detected by anomalous mental phenomena
Date: June 24, 2013 5:02:48 PM PDT
To: JACK SARFATTI
...See More
• Jack Sarfatti From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] Reality of Possibility
Date: June 25, 2013 11:08:05 AM PDT
To: Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
...See More
www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk
This paper is dedicated to three great thinkers who have insisted that the world is not quite the straightforward affair that our successes in describing it mathematically may have seemed to suggest: Niels Bohr, whose analyses of the problem of explaining life play a central role in the following di...
• Jack Sarfatti On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

See Chapter 7 of my book. One can see the usual subject/object dichotomy as the absorption/emission dichotomy in TI, and can think of 'qualia' as the subjective aspects of any absorption event.

This is strange. You seem to say that in the simplest Feynman diagram ---< --- = photon < = scattered electron

there is a conscious experience?

I think you go too far. First of all quantum electrodynamics is built upon linear unitary Born probability rule orthodox quantum theory with signal locality "passion at a distance" (A. Shimony), no perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state etc. built in. David Deutsch has correctly argued that consciousness is not possible in orthodox quantum theory.

Basically your distinction is equivalent to Bohm's simply a change of nouns in my opinion.

Your "possibility" = Bohm's "quantum potential" Q = Wheeler's BIT = Stapp's "thought like" field = David Chalmers "intrinsic mental field"

Your "actuality" = Bohm's not so "hidden variables" i.e. material particles/classical EM-gravity field configurations that are piloted by Q i.e. "beables."

Valentini's recent claim that Q is unstable leading to deviations from Born probability rule where it shouldn't of course needs to be addressed. Basil Hiley did so.

As you will see in Lecture 8 of Michael Towler's http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

The no-signal theorems of Adrian Kent et-al only apply in the approximate limit where the generalized action-reaction principle of Einstein's relativity is violated.

In other words, no stand-alone entanglement signaling (without a classical signal key to decrypt the coded message) depends upon lack of a direct back-reaction of Q on the beables it pilots. This is equivalent to Antony Valentini's "sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" of the beables.
Indeed, orthodox quantum theory is not background independent to make an analogy of Q with space-time geometry. Q is not itself a dynamical field (in configuration space) it has no sources! This violates Einstein's relativity principle in a very deep sense of no absolute fields in physics. Any field that acts on another field must have back-reaction. Now of course we have test particles in the gravity & EM fields that are not sources. But we all understand that is an approximation. Orthodox quantum theory depends upon beables being test particles, i.e. not sources of the Q BIT field in configuration space. Therefore, orthodox quantum theory is an approximation of a more general theory, e.g. something like Valentini's, and is not complete. The most obvious breakdown of orthodox quantum theory is living matter.

Orthodox Quantum Theory is simply John Archibald Wheeler's

IT FROM BIT

It is incomplete because it does NOT have direct back-reaction

BIT FROM IT.
• Jack Sarfatti Consciousness is, in my view, an emergent property of very complex highly entangled many-particle pumped open-systems which are Prigogine's "dissipative structures" corresponding to Tony Valentini's "sub-quantal non-equilibrium". The big defect in Valentini's theory is that he does not properly address pumping of the system. He only really includes closed systems relaxing to thermal equilibrium.

Consciousness is imprinting of information directly from the classical IT material degrees of freedom, e.g. CLASSICAL Fuv = Au,v - Av,u on their (super) pilot field Q, which is intrinsically mental.

<ureye.gif>

CONSCIOUS QUALIA = IT FROM BIT + BIT FROM IT

in a creative self-organizing loop of a nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum theory.

We need the "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous breakdown of ground state symmetry to get the Glauber coherent states that obey a nonlinear nonunitary Landau-Ginzburg equation in ordinary space - not configuration space - that replaces the linear unitary Schrodinger-Dirac equations. This is why 't Hooft's S-Matrix for black hole horizons may fail. This is why Tegmark's Level 3 may fail as well.

<multiverse.jpg>

In particular, as I note in the book, the 'Now' (with its attendant qualia) is a primal, irreduceably local phenomenon, defined relative to an absorption resulting in an actualized transaction. Biological organisms are very sophisticated absorption systems. Note that my model does not presume that the physical entities are mind-free Cartesian matter, so allows for a subjective component within the interacting systems, although the model is not observer-dependent.

RK

Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:26:50 -0700
To:

It's much more than that. I have a clear picture of qualia. What's yours?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 24, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

You're depending on the Bohmian model here. I'm working with a different model, so these arguments don't apply.

RK
Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:34:05 -0700
To: rekastner@hotmail.com

I don't think u can have consciousness qualia without signal nonlocality violating quantum theory.

Sure free will is simply the piloting of matter by Bohm's Q. However, you cannot have qualia imprinted on Q from the matter Q pilots. Quantum theory violates the generalized action-reaction principle.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Jack,

Thanks for the feedback.
My interpretation of the quantum realm as physical possibility certainly leaves room for the theory to apply to consciousness and biological systems. For example, I don't go into this in detail in my book, but 'offer waves' (i.e. the entities described by quantum states) are excitations of the relevant fields. The creation of these entities (involving 'creation operators' in QFT) is inherently unpredictable. This leaves room for things like volition and creativity within the standard theory.
So I disagree that one needs a Valentini-type model i.e., going beyond standard QM, for these things.

I welcome thoughts on my guest post on George Musser's Sci Am blog (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/06/21/can-we-resolve-quantum-paradoxes-by-stepping-out-of-space-and-time-guest-post/)

Ruth

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:07:52 -0700
Subject: Reality of Possibility

To: rek

Ruth, I disagree with your basic thesis that orthodox quantum theory is complete.
This would deny Antony Valentini's sub-quantal non-equilibrium with signal nonlocality for example.
My basic thesis is that orthodox quantum theory is incomplete. That it cannot explain biology and consciousness.
Both the latter depend upon signal nonlocality in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory.

1) linear Hermitian operators for all observables

2) orthogonal eigenfunctions for all observables

3) unitary time evolution

4) linear superposition of quantum states

5) Born probability interpretation

6) consciousness

are incompatible

I also accept retro-causation in mind/brain data as a working hypothesis, i.e. Libet, Radin, Bierman, Bem.
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Next month will be the 100th anniversary of Bohr's model of the atom, one of the foundations of the theory of quantum mechanics. And look where ...
Jun 23

Gerard 't Hooft's TWO greatest blunders? S-Matrix & Rejection of Time Travel Destiny Matrix

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: time travel, S-Matrix, hologram universe, Gerard 't Hooft, Destiny Matrix

The thin sheet of reality of the hologram universe is the brane of Hawking's Mind of God. ;-)
Destiny

1) S-Matrix?

S-Matrix is an input-output black box model for scattering of simple beams of non-interacting particles (ensembles) on similar ensembles of targets (true each target can be a complex system like a crystal or fluid with quasiparticles and collective mode excited states of the ground state).

The inputs and outputs are external lines corresponding to poles of the Feynman propagators in the complex energy plane. In other words they are real particles on-mass-shell. If massless bosons in the classical limit they are radiative far fields of only two transverse polarization if spin 1 (EM) or spin 2 (gravity).

Virtual particles are inside the black box (internal lines of the Feynman diagrams).

However, for cosmology and the hologram universe - for horizons the S-Matrix is incomplete. Sure you can use it for collapsing matter increasing the area-entropy of the horizon (black hole) or matter flowing out of the causal diamond in the case of our observer-dependent future cosmological event horizon.

However, the stable state is completely off-mass-shell, i.e. coherent Glauber states of off-mass-shell virtual bosons like the EM near fields of electrical power engineering of our grid and our every day electrical machines and home appliances. PG & E mainly deals with near fields. High energy physicists seem to draw a blank on near fields. The most important parts of the universe are near fields.

Thus the two most important toy model SSS metrics in Einstein's GR are

g00 = 1 - rs/r  etc. black hole

g0'0' = 1 - r'^2/A

with horizons g00 = 0 and g0'0' = 0

Quantum mechanically speaking these metrics are made out of Glauber coherent states of off-mass-shell gravitons of zero frequency and a continuous spectrum of wave vectors.

GRAVITY WAVES PLAY NO ROLE in this static limit.

Yes, they do when excited states of the pixeled stretched membrane (Kip Thorne) with scrambled BITs for distant observers is included, i.e. Hawking radiation. But that is treated in perturbation theory around the above static solutions.

Now I do remember that the S-Matrix can be extended to treat bound states so maybe that is the way out of the dilemma?

2) 't Hooft's naive rejection of Aharonov's destiny post-selection &Wheeler-Feynman Cramer's transactions, CTCs in quantum computing, and invoking the Red Herring of the Grandfather paradox - see the World Science Festival 2011 video with 't Hooft, Susskind, Verlinde, Buosso - moderated by Hockenberry of PBS.

Jun 23

Conflict of Hologram Picture With Retarded Causality? What about 2nd Law of Thermo?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Gerard 't Hooft

Jack Sarfatti

1.
2. Jack Sarfatti
• Gerard 't Hooft's Biggest Blunder on Causality? http://t.co/myn111rTcg
Gerard 't Hooft's Biggest Blunder on Causality?
lnkd.in
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
3. Jack Sarfatti
• Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond) V2
lnkd.in
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
4. Jack Sarfatti
• Godzilla in the room. When is the hologram we are inside of? http://t.co/qIpgSEOjZs
Godzilla in the room: WHEN ARE the past and future hologram screens?.pdf
tinyurl.com
Do we live inside a hologram destiny matrix?
• Jack Sarfatti Lenny says it's a c-bit per horizon pixel. I would think God would use a q-bit spinor per pixel.
5. Jack Sarfatti
• http://t.co/6TkC0yb9rt are we holograms in the Destiny Matrix? http://t.co/uPQLeBGX05
Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond)
tinyurl.com
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
6. Jack Sarfatti
• A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full): http://t.co/SzJY7HrgON via @youtube
A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
youtu.be
2011 World Science Festival panel discussion on the holographic principle. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_h...
• Jack Sarfatti That's Buosso, Verlinde, 't Hooft and Susskind - the top guys in hologram universe theory at cutting edge of physics today. Briane Greene also briefly in a clip.
• Jack Sarfatti 't Hooft toward the end does begin to notice Godzilla in the room. He is mistaken when he says there is no evidence for back-from-the-future retro-causal (e.g., Cramer handshake transactions, dark energy itself, Libet - Radin - Bierman - Bem brain EEG presponse, Aharonov destiny post-selection, Valentini signal nonlocality effects). However 't Hooft is correct to note a tension between the hologram idea and retarded causality. The future light cone of the observer where it intersects its future horizon is responsible for dark energy and most of the hologram voxel imaging. Of course he is right to notice the conflict between the hologram idea and his conception of ONLY past causes of future effects.

It's curious that Lenny thinks it's a c-BIT per pixel. Why is it not a SPINOR q-BIT per pixel?
• Jack Sarfatti Information being lost or hidden is not same as information being destroyed - they say. But how about information being created? - like works of art, music, literature, theoretical physics equations etc. Also the area-entropies of both our past and future horizons increase from the moment of inflation, though the future horizon has a finite upper bound asymptote of about 10^122 pixels in our causal diamond patch of the multiverse.
Jun 23

Gerard 't Hooft's Biggest Blunder on Causality?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Gerard 't Hooft

Gerard 't Hooft despite his Nobel Prize is incredibly naive about causality. He thinks advanced causation is irrational and threatens science. He does not seem to be aware of Wheeler-Feynman - hard to believe, nor of David Deutsch's, Seth Lloyd's et-al work on CTCs in quantum computing, Aharonov's destiny post-selection, Tony Valentini's signal nonlocality etc. He still thinks the Grandfather Paradox is a real obstacle.

Jun 22

Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond) V2

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Lenny Susskind, hologram universe

't Hooft toward the end does begin to notice Godzilla in the room. He is mistaken when he says there is no evidence for back-from-the-future retro-causal (e.g., Cramer handshake transactions, dark energy itself, Libet - Radin - Bierman - Bem brain EEG presponse, Aharonov destiny post-selection, Valentini signal nonlocality effects). However 't Hooft is correct to note a tension between the hologram idea and retarded causality. The future light cone of the observer where it intersects its future horizon is responsible for datk energy and most of the hologram voxel imaging.

It's curious that Lenny thinks it's a c-BIT per pixel. Why is it not a SPINOR q-BIT per pixel?

1. Jack Sarfatti
• A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full): http://t.co/SzJY7HrgON via @youtube
A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
youtu.be
2011 World Science Festival panel discussion on the holographic principle. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_h...
Jun 22

Are We Holograms in the Destiny Matrix Simulation (Lenny Susskind's Theory and Beyond)

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Lenny Susskind, hologram universe

1. Jack Sarfatti
• A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full): http://t.co/SzJY7HrgON via @youtube
A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram (Full)
youtu.be
2011 World Science Festival panel discussion on the holographic principle. http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/a_thin_sheet_of_reality_the_universe_as_a_h...
2. Jack Sarfatti
BBC Horizon 2005: 5/7 The Hawking Paradox
youtu.be
According to Susskind, if Hawking's ideas were correct then it would infect all physics; there would no longer be any direct link between cause and effect. P...
3. Jack Sarfatti
UFOS AND STAR GATE WORMHOLES
• Jack Sarfatti Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Re: Curved Traversable Wormholes
Date: June 22, 2013 9:07:21 AM PDT
...See More
humansarefree.com
L'expérience avec le tube de cuivre et l'aimant permanent s'explique grâce à un ...See More
• Edgar Diem When comes the first official revelation to the world? You should know Jack
• Jonathan Vos Post .
Cool horizons for entangled black holes
Juan Maldacena, Leonard Susskind
(Submitted on 3 Jun 2013)
General relativity contains solutions in which two distant black holes are connected through the interior via a wormhole, or Einstein-Rosen bridge. The
se solutions can be interpreted as maximally entangled states of two black holes that form a complex EPR pair. We suggest that similar bridges might be present for more general entangled states.
In the case of entangled black holes one can formulate versions of the AMPS(S) paradoxes and resolve them. This suggests possible resolutions of the firewall paradoxes for more general situations.
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Cite as: arXiv:1306.0533 [hep-th]
(or arXiv:1306.0533v1 [hep-th] for this version)
Submission history
From: Juan Maldacena [view email]
[v1] Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:56:30 GMT (303kb,D)
Jun 22

Reality of Possibility

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Ruth Elinor Kastner, Quantum Information Theory, David Bohm, Basil Hiley
Jack Sarfatti
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:
OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).
This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.
BJH.
• Jack Sarfatti On Jun 21, 2013, at 3:54 AM, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk> wrote:

Ruth,

My work on the ideas that Bohm and I summarised in "The Undivided Universe" have moved on considerably over the last decade. But even in our book, we were suggesting that the particle could have a complex and subtle structure (UU p. 37) which could be represented as a point-like object only above the level of say 10^-8 cm. This comment, taken together with point 2 in our list of key points on p. 29 implies that we are not dealing with 'small billiard balls'. There could be an interesting and subtle structure that we have not explored-indeed we can't explore with the formalism in common use, i.e. the wave function and the Schrödinger equation. This is my reason for exploring a very different approach based on a process philosophy (See my paper arXiv: 1211.2098).

In the case of the electron, we made a partial attempt to discuss the Dirac particle in our book (UU chapter 12). The presentation there (section12.2) only scratched the surface since we had no place for the quantum potential. However we showed in arXiv: 1011.4033 that if we explored the role of the Clifford algebra more throughly, we could provide a more detailed picture which included a quantum potential. We could then provide a relativistic version of what I call the Bohm model or, more recently, Bohmian non-commuting dynamics to distinguish it from a number of other variants of the model.

In our approach all fermions could then be treated by one formalism which in the classical limit produced our 'rock-like' point classical particles. Bosons had to be treated differently, after all we do not have a 'rock-like' classical limit of a photon. Rather we have a coherent field. Massive bosons have to be treated in a differently way, but I won't go into that here.

reference? I have been struggling with that in my dreams.

We noted the difference between bosons and fermions in the UU and treated bosons as excited states of a field. In this case it was the field that became the beable and it was the field that was organised by what we called a 'super quantum potential'. In this picture the energy of say an emitted photon spread into the total field and did not exist as a localised entity. Yes, a rather different view from that usually accepted, but after all that was the way Planck himself pictured the situation. John Bell immediately asked, "What about the photon?" so we put an extra section in the UU (sec. 11.7). The photon concept arises because the level structure of the atom. It is the non-locality and non-linearity of the super quantum potential that sweeps the right amount of energy out of the field to excite the atom.

Since the photon is no longer to be thought of as a particle, merely an excitation of the field, there is no difficulty with the coherent state. It is simply the state of the field whose energy does not consist of a definite number of a given hν. A high energy coherent field is the classical limit of the field, so there is no problem there either.

All of this is discussed in detail in "The Undivided Universe".

Hope this clarifies our take on these questions.

Basil.
• Jack Sarfatti The Brown-Wallace is an interesting paper, but I do not agree with its conclusions. Of course, this is exactly what you would expect me to say! What is needed is a careful response which I don't have time to go into here, so let me be brief. The sentence that rang alarm bells in their paper was "Our concern rather is with the fact that for Bohm it is the entered wave packet that determines the outcome; the role of the hidden variable, or apparatus corpuscle, is merely to pick or select from amongst all the other packets in the configuration space associated with the final state of the joint object-apparatus system." (See top of p. 5 of arXiv:quant-ph/0403094v1). As soon as I saw that sentence, I knew the conclusion they were going to reach. It gives the impression that it is the wave packet that is the essential real feature of the description and there need be nothing else. For us the 'wave packet' was merely short hand which was meant to signify the quantum potential that would be required to describe the subsequent behaviour of the particle. For us it was the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation that was THE dynamical equation. The Schrödinger equation was merely an part of an algorithm for calculating the probable outcomes of a given experimental arrangement. ( Yes it's Bohr!) But for us THERE IS an underlying dynamics which is a generalisation of the classical dynamics. Indeed my recent paper (arXiv 1211.2098) shows exactly how the classical HJ equation emerges from the richer quantum dynamics. The term 'wave packet' was merely short hand. There is no wave! This is why we introduced the notion of active information which is universally ignored.

On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Basil, but what about other particles? E.g. photons and quanta of other fields. -RK

On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Well my main concern re photons is coherent states where there isn't a definite number of quanta. Perhaps this has
been addressed in the Bohmian picture -- if so I'd be happy to see a reference. However I still think that TI provides
a better account of measurement since it gives an exact physical basis for the Born Rule rather than a statistical one,
and also the critique of Brown and Wallace that I mentioned earlier is a significant challenge for Bohmian approach. What
B & W point out is that it is not at all clear that the presence of a particle in one 'channel' of a WF serves as an effective reason for collapse of the WF.

RK

Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:13:10 -0700
To: rekastner

Never a problem for boson fields just look at undivided universe book now online

Sent from my iPhone

Subject: Re: Reality of possibility
From: b.hiley
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:10:39 +0100

On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:52, Ruth Kastner wrote:

OK, not sure what the 'yes' was in response to, but I should perhaps note that you probably need to choose between the Bohmian theory or the transactional picture, because they are mutually exclusive. There are no 'beables' in TI. But there is a clear solution to the measurement problem and no discontinuity between the relativistic and non-relativistic domains as there are in the Bohmian theory (which has to abandon particles as beables at the relativistic level).

Basil: This last statement is not correct. Bohmian theory can now be applied to the Dirac particle. You do not have to abandon the particle for Fermions at the relativistic level. There is a natural progression from Schrödinger → Pauli → Dirac. See Hiley and Callaghan, Clifford Algebras and the Dirac-Bohm Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation. {em Foundations of Physics}, {f 42} (2012) 192-208. More details will be found in arXiv: 1011.4031 and arXiv: 1011.4033.

BJH.

RK

> Subject: Reality of possibility